P.Bhavani, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 82/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90325 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DAS GUPTA IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASU; G GOPALAN RETD
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 139

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . !' , # $% BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.82 /MDS/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-2011 ) P. BHAVANI, NO.88, BRINDHAVAN STREET, WEST MAMBALAM, CHENNAI 600 033 [PAN:ACJPB 3523E] ( &' /APPELLANT) VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE I (5), CHENNAI ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A. NO.83 /MDS/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-2011 ) R. JAYALAKSHMI L/R R.KUMAR, NO.88, BRINDHAVAN STREET, WEST MAMBALAM, CHENNAI 600 033 [PAN: ACTPJ 5278Q] ( &' /APPELLANT) VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE I (5), CHENNAI ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. G. GOPALAN, RETD JCIT & SHRI. T. VASU, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. S. DASGUPTA, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 27.04.2015 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.05.2015 I.T.A.NOS.82 & 83/MDS/2015 :- 2 -: + / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE TWO APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSESS EES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, CHENNAI, DATED 12.11.2014 FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. SINCE THE ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS IS COMMON IN N ATURE, HENCE THESE APPEALS ARE COMBINED, HEARD TOGETHER, AND DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEES IN THESE APPEALS IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ISSUE IS COMMON IN NATURE IN BOTH APPEALS, WE C ONSIDER THE FACTS AS NARRATED IN ITA NO.82/MDS/2015 FOR ADJUDICATION . 3. IN THIS CASE, THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME IN ITR IV FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 WAS FILED ELECTRONICALLY BY THE ASSESSEE ON 20.09.2010 VIDE E-FILING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NUMBER 156323040200910. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143( 1) BY CPC, BANGALORE ON 12.03.2011, WHEREBY IN THE INCOME TAX COMPUTATION, THE DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA WAS COMPUTED AT I1, 00,000/-, THOUGH THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF I.T.A.NOS.82 & 83/MDS/2015 :- 3 -: INCOME WAS I3,84,50,966/-. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE INTIMATION DATED 12.03.201 1, BUT THE SAME WAS REJECTED BY THE CPC BANGALORE VIDE ITS ORDER DA TED 26.07.2011. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF RECTIFICATION, THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, CHENNAI, WHO VIDE HIS ORDER IN ITA NO.84/11-12 DATED 03.8.2012, ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED A N APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT AND THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER IN IT NO.1997/MDS/2012 DATED 7.2.2013 DISMISSED THE APPEA L OF THE REVENUE AFTER IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT VIDE AN ORDER U/S.154 DATED 16.10.2012, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-I, CHENNAI RECTIFIED HIS ORDER DATED 3.8.2012 AND DISMISSED TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AN ORDER U/S.143(3), DATED 28.03.201 3 WAS PASSED BY ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(5), CHENNAI WHEREBY THE CLAI M OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB WAS ONCE AGAIN DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CE NTRAL-I, CHENNAI WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 12.11.2014 IN ITA NO.3 2/2013-14 HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THIS , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT FO R THE AY 2010-11 , THE ASSESSEE'S TURNOVER IN RESPECT OF 80 IB PROJECT IS RS . 7 , 08,79,942/- . S T ATUTORY AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CB & 3CD WERE I.T.A.NOS.82 & 83/MDS/2015 :- 4 -: OBTAINED FROM AUDITOR THIRU . V.KALYANAKRISHNAN , PARTNER, M/S SUCHITRA & CO , MEMBERSHIP NO. 24338 , VIDE REPORT DATED 20 . 9.2010 . THE LAST DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN FOR THE AY IS 30.09.2010 , IN VIEW OF THE STATUTORY AUDIT CONDUCTED U/S 44AB. ACCORDINGLY, R ETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2010-11 WAS ELECTRONICALLY FILED ON 20.09 . 2010 VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO . 156323040200910. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT THE RETURN OF INCO ME WAS FILED BELATEDLY ON 20.09.2010 INSTEAD OF 04.08.2010, SINC E OURS IS 44AB CASE AND LAST DATE IS 30 . 09 . 2010 . THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUA L AND THE TURNOVER OF ASSESSEE IN 80 IB ITSELF IS I5,41,12,42 5/- 44AB, FORM 3CB & 3CD DATED 20.09.2010 FILED. THEREFORE, THE LAST DAT E FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME IS 30 . 09 . 2010, THE RETURN OF INCOME IS FILED ON 24.09.2010, WHICH IS WELL WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT U/S 139(1). THE DEPARTMENT COUNSEL ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB (10) UNDER CHAPTER VI A IN THE COMPUTATIO N OF TOTAL INCOME . AS REVEALED FROM THE COPY OF ELECTRONICALLY FILED E -RETURN IN FORM NO.ITR-4 DOWNLOADED FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL WEBSITE WWW.INCOMETAXINDIAEFILING.GOV. IN THE DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF I3,84,50,966/- WAS CLAIMED. 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT AS IN EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF THE DOWNLOADED VERSION (DO WNLOADED ON I.T.A.NOS.82 & 83/MDS/2015 :- 5 -: 08.10.2012) OF THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME A ND TAX THEREON (ITR-4), THE RELEVANT COLUMNS OF PAGE 1 READS AS UNDER:- ARE YOU LIABLE FOR AUDIT U/S.44ABNO IN PAGE 16 PART-B- COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME COLU MN 11 READS AS UNDER:- DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A(S OF SCHEDULE VIA) I1,00,000/- IN COLUMN 16 OF PAGE 18, THE E-FILING ACKNOWLEDGEME NT NO. IS GIVEN, WHICH TALLIES WITH THE COPY OF THE E-FILED R ETURN PURPORTEDLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. PERUSAL OF THE DOWNLOADED V ERSION OF THE E- FILED RETURN SHOWS THAT THE PURPORTED DEDUCTION U/S .80IB OF I3,83,50,966/- WAS NEVER CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HERSELF HAS DECLARED IN HER RETURN OF INCO ME THAT SHE WAS NOT LIABLE TO GET HER ACCOUNTS AUDITED U/S.44AB. T HE COPY OF THE RETURN AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BO OK ALSO DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE DATE OF AUDIT REPORT. AS SUCH, IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO GET HER ACCOUNTS AUDITED IS UNDER LEGAL OBLIGATION TO FILE H E R RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN DUE DATE (OR AS EXTENDED BY VIRTUE OF NOTIFICATION TO THAT EFFECT) AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE EXTENDED DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME F OR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT REQUIRED TO GET THEIR ACCOUNTS AUDITED FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS 04.08.2010. THE RETURN OF INCOM E WAS FILED I.T.A.NOS.82 & 83/MDS/2015 :- 6 -: ONLY N 20.09.2010. IN THIS RESPECT, HE DREW OUR ATT ENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 AS ARE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 6. IN REJOINDER, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCED BEFORE THE BENCH FOUR COMPUTER SHEETS WHICH ARE NOTHING BU T THE REPRODUCTION OF COLUMN AS COMPUTED BY THE CPC U/S.1 43(1) AND WITH REFERENCE TO TAX CALCULATION, THE COLUMNS AS COMPUT ED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ORDER U/S.154, CPC, BENGALURU. IN NUT SHELL, IT IS NOT THE PAPER FROM WHICH CLAIM OF THE APPEAL COULD BE ASCER TAINED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THESE ARE THE FIGURES SHOWN IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE CPC ORDER U/S.154. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AFTER THE ORDER U/S.143(3) THAT A CLAIM UNDER CHAPTER VI IS EVIDENT IN SEVERAL PLACES IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS COULD BE SEEN FRO M THE DOWNLOADED RETURN OF INCOME. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THE RETURN IN FORM ITR -4 READS AS UNDER:- I.T.A.NOS.82 & 83/MDS/2015 :- 7 -: IND I A N INCOME TAX RETURN ASSESSMENT YEA R ITR - 4 [FO R INDLS A ND H UF S HA V ING INCOME FROM A PROPRIETOR Y BU S INESS OR ., ( PL EASE SEE RUL E 12 OF THE INCOM E T A X - 2010 - 11 (A LSO S EE ATTACHED INSTRUCTIONS ) FIRS T NA M E M IDDL E N AM E LAST N AM E P AN R .JA Y ALAKSHMI ACTPJ527 8 Q FLAT 1 DO O R 1 BLOCK NO NA ME OF P R E MISES / BUILDING / V ILL AGE S T A TUS (I- I NDI V IDU A L ,H-HUF) NEW N O . 88 NAVIN ' S BRIN D A V AN I - INDIVI DU AL R OA D 1 S TREET 1 POST OFFICE AR E A 1 LOC A LIT Y DAT E OF BIRTH BRLNDAVAN ST R EET WEST MAMBALAM ( IN C AS E OF I N DI V IDUAL ) 21/05/ 1 933 T O W N /C IT V/ DISTRICT STATE SE X (SELEC T ) C HENNA I 29 - TAMILNADU 600033 F-F E MALE E M A IL A DDRES S (S TD CO D E) PHO N E E MPLO YE R CAT EGO R Y (IF IN G M ~ NAVINHO U SING.COM 44 2372 E MPLO Y M E NT) OTH D ES I G N A TION OF AS SES S ING OFFIC ER (WA RD 1 CIRCL E) R E TURN FIL E D UND E R S ECTION I (PI S E E INSTRUCTION NO 9(I)] 11 U / S 13 9 (1 ) W H E TH E R ORIGINAL OR RE V ISED R E TURN ? O-ORI G INAL IF RE VISE D , E NT E R R E C E IPT NO A ND DA TE OF DATE FI L I N G O RIGINAL RE T URN (DD /MM/YYYY) : (DD /MM/ Y YYY) E N R ES ID E NTIAL STATUS R ES - R ESIDENT W H E TH E R THIS RETURN IS BEING FIL E D B Y A REPRESENTATI VE A SSE SSEE ? LF YES, PLEASE FURNISH N - NO . . . FOLLO W ING INFORMATION ( A N AME OF THE REPRESENTATI VE B A DDR E SS OF T HE REPRESENTATI V E C P E RMANENT A CCOUNT N UMB E R (P AN ) OF TH E REPR ESE NTATI VE A R E Y OU LIABLE TO MAINTAIN ACCOUNT S A S PER S ECTION 44 AA? N - NO A R E Y OU LIABLE FOR A UDIT UNDER S ECT I ON 44 A B ? ( SE L E CT) LF YE S , FURNI S H FOLLOWING INFORMATION- N A N AME OF THE AUDITOR SIGNIN G TH E TAX AUDIT R E PORT V . K AL Y ANA KRI S H NAN B MEMBERSHIP NO. OF THE AUDITOR 02 4 338 C N AM E OF THE AUDITOR (PROPRIETORSHIP/ FIRM) SUCH I T R A & CO . . . P E RM A NENT A CCOUNT N UMB E R (P AN ) OF TH E PROPR IE TORSHIP/ FIRM AADFS9457J D E DAT E OF AUDIT R E PORT. 23 / 09 / 2010 ( DD IM M IY Y Y Y ) F O R OFFIC E US E ONL Y F OR OFFICE U SE ONL Y R E C E IP T N O D A T E S E AL AN D S I G NATUR E O F RECE I V IN G OFFI C IAL I.T.A.NOS.82 & 83/MDS/2015 :- 8 -: 8. IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO MAINTAIN ACCOUNTS AS PER SECTION 44AA OF THE ACT. AS SEEN FR OM THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE FILLED COLUMN REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF P ROVISIONS U/S.44AB AS END (NO). A COPY OF THE RETURN SAID TO BE DOWN LOADED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CONTAIN DATE OF AUDIT REPORT AS P OINTED OUT BY LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. IT WAS STATED THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO GET HER ACCOUNTS AUDITED U/S.44AB A ND SO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GOT AUDITED ACCOUNTS. CONSEQUENTLY, NO AUD IT REPORT WAS FILED. THE ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO IS NOT REQUIR ED TO GET HER ACCOUNTS AUDITED IS UNDER LEGAL OBLIGATION TO FILE HER RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN DUE DATE BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THIS CASE THERE IS EXTENDED DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR INDIV IDUAL AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO GET HER ACCOUNTS AUDITED FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS 04.08.2010. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 20.09.2010. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HIT BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC OF THE ACT . THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80AC READS AS FOLLOWS:- WHEREIN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVENAT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2006 OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, ANY DECUTION IS ADMISSI BLE UNDER SECTION 80-IA OR SECTION 80-IAB OR SECTION 80 -IB OR SECTION 80-IC (OR SECTION 80-ID OR SECTION 80IE), N O SUCH DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED TO HIM UNLESS HE FURNISH ES A RETURN OF HIS INCOME FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR ON OR BEFORE I.T.A.NOS.82 & 83/MDS/2015 :- 9 -: THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SEC TION 139. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE EXTENDED DUE DATE WA S 04.08.2010 AND THE RETURN WAS FILED BELATEDLY ON 20.09.2010. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-AC, TH E ASSESSEE, IN ORDER TO AVAIL OF THE BENEFITS OF DEDU CTION U/S. CHAPTER VI-A IS REQUIRED, AS PER LAW, TO FILE THE R ETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE DUE DATE. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE AND AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO AVAIL OF T HE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME B ELATEDLY ON 20.09.2010, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDU CTION U/S.80 IB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A PLEA BEFORE US, T HAT THERE WAS AN ERROR IN FILLING E-RETURN OF INCOME WHICH IS TOO TE CHNICAL IS TO BE IGNORED. IN OUR OPINION, THIS WAS CONSIDERED BY TH E TRIBUNAL ON THE EARLIER OCCASION AND THE TRIBUNAL GIVEN THE FINDING S IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR IN ITA NO.1997/MDS/20 12 WHICH IS STARRING AT THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN OBSERVED THAT REA DING OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE E-RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOW TH AT THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE AF TER WORKING OUT TAX DUES, SHOWED TAXES PAID AS I1,38,84,356/- WHEN THE TOTAL EVEN AS PER ASSESSEES FIGURE ITSELF OUGHT HAVE BEEN MORE. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION IN ITA NO .1997/MDS/2012, DATED 07.02.2013 OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND AL SO HEARD THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WHILE FILING THE E-RETURN HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF 1 LAKH ONLY UNDER CHAPTER-VI A OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE HAD PROFIT AND GAINS OF 8,62,93,033/-. ALONG WITH SALARIES AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF I.T.A.NOS.82 & 83/MDS/2015 :- 10 -: ASSESSEE WAS 8,98,13,395/-. AGAINST THE COLUMN FOR SHOWING DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER-VI-A, ASSESSEE GAVE THE FIGURE OF 1,00,000/-. HOWEVER, IN THE COLUMN SHOWING THE TOTAL INCOME 5,13,62,429/- WAS SHOWN. A READING OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE E-RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOW TH AT THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD THE DEPARTMENT. ASSESSEE AFTER WORKING OUT TAX DUES, SHOWED TAXES PAID AS 1,38,84,356/- WHEN THE TOTAL EVEN AS PER ASSESSEES FIGURE ITSELF OUGHT HAVE BEEN MORE. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE CANNOT SAY THAT APPLICATION FO R RECTIFICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANTING IT DEDUCTION OF 8,62,93,033/- UNDER SECTION 80-IB WAS UNJUSTLY REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED NO SUCH CLAIM IN ITS RETURN AT ALL. THIS SEEMS TO BE THE RIGHT DECISION TAKEN B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, CIT(A) HAD ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE GOING INTO THE MERITS WHEN THE RECTIFICATION WAS REJECTED BY THE A.O. BASED ON THE FIGURES GIVEN IN THE E-RETURN FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN ANY CASE, CIT(A) ON 16.10.12 REALIZING HIS MISTAKE, RECTIFIED THE EARLIER APPELL ATE ORDER, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REJECTION OF PETITION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, AS MATTER STANDS NOW, THERE IS NO ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 03.08.12 IN THE EYES OF LAW. HENCE APPEAL FILLED BY THE REVENUE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. SINCE THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY TO POINT OUT THE FACTUM OF WITHDRAWAL OF THE EARLIER ORDER BY THE CIT(A), IT I S ONLY A CLARIFICATION, THUS NEEDING NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 9. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE CANNOT SAY THAT CLAIM FOR GRANTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB WAS UNJUSTLY REJECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED NO SUCH CLAIM IN I TS RETURN AT ALL. THIS SEEMS TO BE THE RIGHT DECISION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. THESE FINDINGS OF US IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY EARLIER ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAS REACHED FINALITY. AT THIS STAGE, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO TAKE A I.T.A.NOS.82 & 83/MDS/2015 :- 11 -: DIFFERENT VIEW THAN EARLIER. ACCORDINGLY, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE GRANTED DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. FU RTHER, WE OBSERVE THAT IF THERE IS TECHNICAL ERROR CAUSED WHILE DOWN LOADING E-RETURN THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF TH E COMPETENT AUTHORITY AT RELEVANT POINT OF TIME WHICH ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO AND TRIED TO MISLEAD THE BENCH, WHICH IS NOTHING BUT T O PRESENT WRONG FACTS OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE INCLINED TO DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE CASE OF R. JAYALAKSHMI, THE LD. AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT FO R THE AY 2010-11 , THE ASSESSEE'S TURNOVER IN RESPECT OF 80 IB PROJECT IS I7 , 08,79,942/- S T ATUTORY AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CB & 3CD WERE OBTAINE D FROM AUDITOR THIRU . V.KALYANAKRISHNAN , PARTNER, M/S SUCHITRA & CO , MEMBERSHIP NO. 24338 , VIDE REPORT DATED 24 . 9.2010 . THE LAST DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN FOR THE AY IS 30.09.2010 , IN VIEW OF THE STATUTORY AUDIT CONDUCTED U/S 44AB. ACCORDINGLY, RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2010-11 WAS ELECTRONICALLY FILED ON 24.09 . 2010 VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO . 158626800240910. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BELATEDLY ON 24 .09.2010 INSTEAD OF 04.08.2010, SINCE OURS IS 44AB CASE AND LAST DATE I S 30 . 09 . 2010 . THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUA L AND THE TURNOVER OF ASSESSEE IN 80 IB ITSELF IS RS . 7,08 , 79,942/- 44AB, FORM 3CB & 3CD DATED 24.09.2010 FILED. I.T.A.NOS.82 & 83/MDS/2015 :- 12 -: THEREFORE, THE LAST DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF I NCOME IS 30 . 09 . 2010, THE RETURN OF INCOME IS FILED ON 24.09.2010, WHICH IS WELL WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT U/S 139(1). THE DEPARTMENT COUNSEL ARGUE D THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB (10) UND ER CHAPTER VI A IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME . AS REVEALED FROM THE COPY OF ELECTRONICALLY FILED E-RETURN IN FORM NO.ITR-4 DOWN LOADED FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL WEBSITE WWW.INCOMETAXINDIAEFILING.GOV. IN THE DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF RS.5,20 , 46,942/- WAS CLAIMED. 10.1 THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE MADE SIM ILAR SUBMISSIONS AS IN THE CASE OF SMT. P. BHAVANI. 10.2 SINCE THE FACTS IN THIS CASE IS IDENTICAL TO THE CA SE OF R. BHAVANI, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED ON SIMILAR LINE. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 82 & 83/MDS/2015 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 1 ST DAY OF MAY, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) V. DURGA RAO # / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# /CHENNAI. $% /DATED:01.05.2015. KV %& '( )( /COPY TO: 1. * APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. + ( )/CIT(A) 4. + /CIT 5. (,- . /DR 6. -/ 0 /GF. I.T.A.NOS.82 & 83/MDS/2015 :- 13 -: